We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Recent cases

Pfizer brought a motion for production of information relating to Pharmascience's product in response to Pharmascience's motion to dismiss the proceeding on the basis of non-infringement and on the basis that the patent was not eligible for inclusion on the Patent Register. The Prothonotary dismissed Pfizer's motion with costs on the basis that the information sought was not relevant, necessary or important for the purposes of Pfizer's application or its response to Pharmascience's motion to dismiss. The Court upheld the Prothonotary's decision.

The Court held that the issues in the proceeding were defined in the NOA as infringement and validity. As the documents requested did not deal with those issues, they were not relevant.

AMR brought an action for infringement against Novopharm, Teva and its suppliers of bulk material. The suppliers brought a motion for summary judgment asking for the claim to be dismissed as against them.

The Court found that the key question on the motion was whether there was sufficient evidence to determine where possession or title of the product passed. The Court found that this question could not be answered on the evidence put forward on the motion and that the supplier was asking the Court to draw inferences.

The question of title transfer is a serious question of fact upon which the main issue of infringement turns. Thus the motion was dismissed.

Compare jurisdictions: Arbitration

“The new ACC Newsstand is one of the best e-resources that I have encountered in 21 years of practicing Employment Law. The information is timely, helpful and easy to navigate. Thank you for offering it and please continue it indefinitely!!”